Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

The Supreme Court’s most senior judge has been urged to stand down from a crucial legal hearing on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union after it emerged his wife had posted a series of anti-Brexit tweets.

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the president of the Supreme Court, was accused by pro-Brexit Conservative MPs of being compromised by his wife’s views.

This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger’s views are nothing to do with it.Supreme Court source

The Supreme Court’s code of conduct warns justices to be aware “that political activity” of a close relative could raise concerns over impartiality although a senior source said the judge was “absolutely confident” there had been no breach in this case.

The source added: “This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger’s views are nothing to do with it.”

'Mad and bad': Lady Neuberger denounced the EU referendum

The government has become embroiled in a row with the judiciary after High Court judges ruled that there should be a parliamentary voter before Article 50 is triggered.

Tory MPs, including Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, criticised the judges. Mr Javid said the ruling was an attempt to "block the will of the people".

Liz Truss, the Justice Secretary, then spoke out attacking the judges' critics after a statement by the Bar Council, which represents 15,000 barristers, urged her to condemn "serious and unjustified attacks on the judiciary".

Lord Neuberger will preside at the beginning of next month over a four-day judicial hearing that will decide whether the Government can trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, giving notice to leave the European Union without a vote in parliament.

In June, Lady Neuberger, 69, appeared to pre-empt the issue her husband, along with 10 colleagues, must now decide, by retweeting a Remain campaign group’s message: “It seems unlikely that a PM could trigger Article 50 without Parliament’s approval.”

Her public pro-Remain stance prompted criticism from Conservative MPs, who in so doing will reignite a row over the right of politicians to attack the judiciary.

Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire, said: “I think he [Lord Neuberger] should stand down. This is a crucially important judicial decision for our country and it must be seen to be taken impartially.”

Andrew Rosindell, the Tory MP for Romford, said: “This is embarrassing for the Supreme Court given the seriousness of the upcoming Court case.

“His wife’s views are injudicious and clearly his position is compromised.”

The Supreme Court’s judicial code of conduct states: “They [the justices] will bear in mind that political activity by a close member of a Justice’s family might raise concern in a particular case about the judge’s own impartiality and detachment from the political process.”

The Supreme Court source said Lady Neuberger’s comments could not be construed as ‘political activity’ under the meaning of the code while the legal action did not challenge the referendum result. “This case is about a point of law and Lady Neuberger’s views are nothing to do with it,” said the source.

A Supreme Court spokesman said: “Justices’ spouses are fully entitled to express personal opinions, including on issues of the day. Lady Neuberger’s passing comments on Twitter have absolutely no bearing on Lord Neuberger’s ability to determine the legal questions in this case impartially, according to the law of the land.”

Lady Neuberger, a former BBC producer, is a prolific user of Twitter, having posted more than 3,920 tweets since joining the social networking site in 2013. She has 664 followers.

On May 17, a month before the referendum, Lady Neuberger wrote: “Ukip just a protest vote as, I fear, is Brexit for many.”

A week before the vote, in response to a posting by Robert Harris, the novelist, who bemoaned the referendum as “depressing, divisive and duplicitous”, she tweeted: “I agree. Referenda mad and bad.”

On June 18, she criticised the BBC over its rules on impartiality. “Need for balance can give weight & credibility to the unreliable,” she wrote and then three days after the poll vote, she complained that “too many” voters had been “misled into thinking various grievances would be resolved by leaving. They won’t be.”

As recently as September 6, she posted a link to a pro-Remain newspaper article that questioned the future of a new research institution in the wake of Brexit, declaring: “What a tragedy if this far-sighted project fell victim to Brexit.”

And last month, she expressed fears the “brain drain has begun” as a consequence of the vote to leave.

She has also launched attacks on Theresa May, branding her ‘wrong’ and on November 1, accused the prime minister of jeopardising higher education “by our new nasty reputation & obstinacy of PM in insisting temporary foreign students treated as immigrants”.

In October she retweeted this message: “So many lies, so much ignorance. It’s the poorest will suffer most from Brexit.”

Anti-Brexit campaigners won a High Court battle earlier this month that forces parliament to first vote on Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union before Article 50 can be triggered by Mrs May.

The Supreme Court ruling is probably the most significant and controversial its judges have had to make since its inception in 2009 and the views of Lady Neuberger will add to the scrutiny ahead of the vote.

Sir Gerald Howarth, Conservative MP for Aldershot and a former minister, said: “I think those who sit in lofty judgement above us need to be exceedingly careful, because if they are to maintain the confidence of the public their impartiality must be unquestioned otherwise they risk damaging the Supreme Court.

“Any perception that they are influenced by others will also be damaging.”

Concern over Lady Neuberger’s outspoken opinions on Brexit and the current Government drew parallels with the case of Lord Hoffmann, then a law lord, who ruled that Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, should be extradited for crimes against humanity. But the judgment was set aside after it emerged that Lord Hoffmann’s wife had worked for 20 years at Amnesty International, the human rights charity which was a party in the case, and that he was involved in a charitable company linked to Amnesty.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the MP for North East Somerset, said: “This raises the same question as it did with Lord Hoffmann and the President of the Supreme Court will have to think carefully about this matter.

“It is important that what the law lords said in regard to Lord Hoffmann was not that they thought there was any suspicion of bias, but that his links raised the question of bias.”